Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1887-07-30

- anassisn 81 u poxm e Che Giay
Cuunru - arass shs impEuEeDens 6
Ninrh gfreet, ana JndRs Allyn eo1ay
rsnaars6 tksfsIIsWing dsszsion = fssok
e ne Gefen1sn1sE
ms q A ssfion bzonRhf By vAESsna
uropsFty awners aIuna &iniA alkset frcn
A y X streets - sas ast6s ne aEsessnNu q
frunosn1 FER tha nFadInR and tnpfsye-
r.euf a. - afEsef 50 fng 90 in3zEe
80. &c. "a 4 esai1ed b. re noz-
ula3nnu1s tat fhs petition fer soch IL
nrgVnrsens - uot sizned By msrs thA1
Scus-h alf o. reafdsue cwnaExr Of pEop-
erfv abut1snq q aid Ninth sfHess
wifhfn - limits Of 4 aDd y Streets,
ana "a aetion q ths Coune1l Wae t1sEe-
fore Vithoat jurisdistions irregular ana
void.
Tne urvssnious Of ths chartsE relied
On ~ coznulainauta and ala0 ~ toe Guy
10 snstain sid asses9Ds1s are = 10
lows Arise 3 Of ssctsnD -, e1sgIeL .
80 psosios for opsn1nRs oes a..z
eisarina grading" Etc. - =.
fmrFoysmsn1s shAn noes however, 3
made a. ths expense & the ownsfs 2.
nsid lots O. parcels Of land frsaLa1 :
upcn sueh sfresA highway o. alaey = Z
poFtioB theEeof proposed . oe impfost : J,
a any 81 tie manners herean sse.seo
unisss &c resident owneFs sflmoks 80
ona-half Of tbs property fronkle3 49,
the proposed improvemsBs ehah nsSe
uetitioaed ths City Council 20 ofoes
aueh impfoBements % oe moees eAesPa
q provided IN section 1Ios
Section us. s1e within ten days from
the Hnni publieation the parsons o2ni1e
oue- haf o. more Of the lots or paroeia
81 land treating upon The street., niRn-.
waT o. alley, proposed % BE improved
within fhs lirniss Aforesaid shall ME g1t1
he CITY Clerk Q remembrance sgelnsi
aid impEovsmeui. grade OF alteration
TIE sane SHALL not be made al tne ex-
renee Of ne owners Of the lots OF per'
eels Of land fronting upon suca stteef,
highway or alley, as aforesaid, uniess
~ OitV CoanciI shall deem sucn work
AZ imurovsueut, necessary, bot no s1en
w0rk shall Be done, or No improvemsntn q
made, anless upon Q unanimous vote o.
All Councilmen theB present
The facts are on March ., 1880, tne
arooertV owners along Ninth street froR
AZ "a b streets peiiti0ned the Council
for 0radfua within thai limit. Upon
she irs dav o. Mar, 1856, the petition
was reported against @foE the reason
that. In The opinion Of your commiitee
~ imur0yement ahoald extend from 4
ssFset % and beyond Yakima avenne.n
10 tbs neanfime, and upon the l5tE
day Of April, 1886, petition had neeh
presented for the Work fE0D a g
x sirees-shese petitions we're on nie q
| the same time-Uhereupon resolution
vas passed 10 improve Ninth street IRON
A 10 K streets.
December p, 1856, the frst petitioner
representing about all the property Be
tween A and d streetss appeared, IN &c
ooFdanoe with the mature OF the pro
POSED work, and protested, and later, b
Petition appeared and asked that ia
work for q time be postponed. Il
seems 70 Be conceded that more thai
one half the resident property owner
for the whole distriet did not sigI
either petition, bat practically ali tn
resident owners from A 10 ID signed
petition for that district, while T.
aecoud petition was signed bY 81 20
reqident owners between ID and Il, AM
tha Council evidently considered al
the petitions, although mol 70 Toe exac
form petitiOned. Article 2, Section
above, would seem 10 require - COS
dition precedent for such work petl
ton OF more than one bali the rsssden
property owners. bat this section . no
conclusive, for il provides this improve
ment even then shall not be made "ex
eept as provided in Section la.
section lis, above, provides that II
protest 10 Aled BY "ons half or mere,
ihs work shall not be done "unless 10
CITY Council shall deem such work
Improvement necessary" upon unanl
nous vote Of ell present. AN inelinei
10 the view that these sections oaght {
be read together as enc, and thst dis
efetien IL given the Council to ofde
such work 10 be done II all the Coune'
voted for it. Il is by no means unusus
10 provide IN charters Of cities the n
quiremeut Of q petition e. q b3sis TO
snoh improvements, and at the sam
time give the Council discretionar
power, in their Judgment, by IMAM
moas vote, 30 TO order, although no %
tition IL fled. Az examination vi
show a majority Of city charters to thu
provide, While IN the case At Bar til
intept IL not &c clear az it should be,
am inclined 10 the view that such is ID
intent, for reasons shall give.
Section -, while il requires 3 petiiio
Of more than one half, provides that
shall not then be done except as pro
yided in lis, and eoutemplstes that
renonstrance OF more than one-hal
the owners may be made and still %
Council NAV, by q unanimous vote, OF
def the work II they deem such voF
uecessary." Now II, IN the face OF
renoustrsnce Of moFs than oLe-hali
the Counsel may order the work BY
unanimous vote, surely We mar cor
eiude that the intent Was to give dil
erection 10 the whole Council 10 decid
II theV thought the work necessary, {
order il IL the petition vas irregular c
defective. Moreover, By Section -,
gufhclent petition being hled, the woE
then 10 only done ''exespt as provide
IN 49, which, - have lust said, con
tsins the important Qualification "un
Hess the City O0ancil ehali deem snel
worh or Improvement necessary an
unless upsn q unanimous vote OF O.
Councilmeu present" In brief, then
I appiy the language Of those sewers
sections 90 tbis case as leaving The mai
ter 20 the judgment Of the Couoed Z
say by unaninous vote, which Is 10 D
other case aver required, whether sRel
work ia necessary or not, and thereb.
investing them with discretion IN IN
matter, which II they have, clearly al
lows them 10 do as they have IN thf
case.
IL they nag order The work a. is eyi
dent from section lis IN the face Of /
protest from more than half, then j
must fellow that they may order tn
Work on 9 petition Of less than half. Il
this ease there are incidental faetl
which Justify resolving she doubt OF
this construction as 10 has been done
The o6isstoEs herein did petition fol
the Improvement OF this street. bat no,
cutie 50 far for their cWn beee6t- The
later petitions asked the sane improve
msnt only snlsrging TIE district. From
the record these petitions we're on ale
AZ The same time. although, later, the
6Est petition was rtjected- The City
Council acting as representatives OF the
whole people had the right 20 consider
ell aloDg the street as pstitioning for its
improvement, and only differing as 10
the extent and meneeE. The Coureil
aust be the Judges Of the needs and IN
teFesis Of this street and Of the
whole city, ard exercise saeh dts
erection. and While these plaintiffs